Blurb/Abstract

Blurb We assign truth-value to everything in the world: either something is, or something is not. However, does that apply for the world herself? Seemingly not, as she changes. Our limit of cognition does therefore not lie in the content

World and thought: both all-embracing?

This work associates two fundamental questions: the one for mental certainty, and the one for physical truth. Right in the beginning, it sets itself the highest possible goal in the search for an all-embracing theory and is thereby already confronted

Objective certainty – from where?

This hierarchy of thought is the basis for the first part of the thesis, making the theory of thought with the aim of mental certainty the only all-embracing theory. It is thereby attempted to gain certainty from a vacuum without

Logic as meta-induction

In what follows, the form of thought is derived from the failed attempt to transgress her, from the factual unbreakability of the limit of thought. Due to the hierarchy of thought over the world, this limit cannot be observed biologically,

Theory of truth not true itself

Every thought is hence certain in its point of thought due to the impossi- bility to break the law of thought. Are there also thoughts that are generally unnegatable, thoughts that are eternally certain? If we view certainty as the

Information – no proofs

Furthermore, provenness is strictly set equal with undeniability, certainty, truth and existence in thought, for which the search for a proof of the means of proofs also leads into a positive regress, while their rejection leads into a negative regress.

Propositions – thoughts as well as theories

Moreover, the difference between theory and thought is set equal with the difference between propositions and thoughts. A thought may be equivalent to the content of a proposition – when we write down a proposition, we hold it for the

Two sets of laws

When we say something should not be contradictory to itself, we both mean a factual law of thought and a normative law of logic: something is factually not both true and false, not both existing and non-existing in a point

King of France, are you bold?

Therefore, logical laws are as factual as the laws of the objects of thought, as theories can only reach agreement with them if they don’t break them. This becomes even clearer when we see logic as a decision method for

Positive and negative paradoxes

We can make claims without actually thinking their content, for which we should limit the use of the laws of logic to where they are derived from: strictly to thought. We often forget that when we use deductive logic making